How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

[progressoid]

How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

By MARK LYNASAPRIL 24, 2015

Mohammed Rahman doesn’t know it yet, but his small farm in central Bangladesh is globally significant. Mr. Rahman, a smallholder farmer in Krishnapur, about 60 miles northwest of the capital, Dhaka, grows eggplant on his meager acre of waterlogged land.

As we squatted in the muddy field, examining the lush green foliage and shiny purple fruits, he explained how, for the first time this season, he had been able to stop using pesticides. This was thanks to a new pest-resistant variety of eggplant supplied by the government-run Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute.

...

In a rational world, Mr. Rahman would be receiving support from all sides. He is improving the environment and tackling poverty. Yet the visit was rushed, and my escorts from the research institute were nervous about permitting me to speak with him at all.

The new variety had been subjected to incendiary coverage in the local press, and campaign groups based in Dhaka were suing to have the pest-resistant eggplant banned. Activists had visited some of the fields and tried to pressure the farmers to uproot their crops. Our guides from the institute warned that there was a continuing threat of violence — and they were clearly keen to leave.

...

I, too, was once in that activist camp. A lifelong environmentalist, I opposed genetically modified foods in the past. Fifteen years ago, I even participated in vandalizing field trials in Britain. Then I changed my mind.

After writing two books on the science of climate change, I decided I could no longer continue taking a pro-science position on global warming and an anti-science position on G.M.O.s.

There is an equivalent level of scientific consensus on both issues, I realized, that climate change is real and genetically modified foods are safe. I could not defend the expert consensus on one issue while opposing it on the other.


more... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/opinion/sunday/how-i-got-converted-to-gmo-food.html?_r=1

[GreatGazoo]

1. GMOs have lower yields

Designed to withstand mega Round Up. And then the other plants develop resistance and... you need more Round Up or more pesticides.

Poisoning people and landscapes is not pro-Science or anti-science -- it is just wrong.

GMO crops are a failed technology, pushed on Americans so that seeds can be patented. There is no benefit from GMO crops for consumers.

[progressoid]

2. Have lower yields?

A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops


Study Eligibility Criteria

Studies were included when they build on primary data from farm surveys or field trials anywhere in the world, and when they report impacts of GM soybean, maize, or cotton on crop yields, pesticide use, and/or farmer profits. In total, 147 original studies were included.

Synthesis Methods

Analysis of mean impacts and meta-regressions to examine factors that influence outcomes.

Results

On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

[Demonaut]

12. this says "for insect resistant crops", round-up crops are designed to be resistant to a very strong

pesticide thus making the argument moot, so one conclude that MORE or STRONGER pesticides are more likely on round-up crops than a farmer would use on a or a crop containing the poison gene or non-gm crop

need the other sets of data related to gene-producing-poison gm crops.

[eridani]

15. Other studies disagree

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/docs/gm-crops-do-not-increase-yields.pdf

From the start, GM crops have performed no better than their non-GM counterparts. Evidence for the “yield drag” of Roundup Ready soybeans, for example, has been known for over a decade—with the disruptive effect of the GM transformation process accounting for approximately half the drop in yield. Field tests of Bt corn showed that they took longer to reach maturity and produced up to 12% lower yields than non-GM counterparts.

In spite of these and other studies, the biotech industry continues to claim that GMOs are the answer to higher yields. Two reports have conclusively contradicted these claims. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were “highly variable” and in some cases, “yields declined.” The report noted, “Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and
damage is unavoidable.” This assessment was based on a comprehensive evaluation of yield since the introduction of commercial GM crops.

Te Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to Yield is the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield. Authored by former US Environmental Protection Agency scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, PhD, it is based on published, peer-reviewed studies conducted by academic scientists using adequate controls. The study concludes that genetically engineering herbicide tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn has only marginally improved yields. Yield ncreases both crops over the last 13 years were largely due to traditional breeding or improved agricultural practices. Dr. Gurian-Sherman states, “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”

[progressoid]

17. I wouldn't put too much trust in Institute for Responsible Technology

Among the largest donors to Institute for Responsible Technology are Organic Valley (George Simeon), Stonyfield Organic Yogurt (Gary Hirshfield), Natural News Insider (Mike Adams) and Mercola.com - alternative health and nutraceuticals (Joe Mercola).

academicsreview.org/reviewed-organizations/institute-for-responsible-technology-ifrt/

[eridani]

20. The people who did the survey all have advanced degrees

One of the attached references was from USDA.

[Orrex]

3. That's about as high a concentration of anti-GMO soundbytes as I've read in weeks.

Well done!

[Cha]

18. :Poisoning people and landscapes is not pro-Science or anti-science -- it is just wrong.".. and,

sickening.

Well said GreatGazoo. I don't care what the pushers of Big Ag-Poisons for Profit have to say.

[SidDithers]

4. DU rec...nt

Sid

[djean111]

5. And you should be able to choose, buy, and cook all the GMO foods your heart and tummy

desire! And others should be able to choose non-GMO foods. Also, conflating climate change and GMO foods is a false equivalency, but you knew that.

[frazzled]

6. No conflation there

It's about the consensus of the scientific community at large. You can't argue for science with regard to climate change and poo-poo it with regard to GMO.

Got it now?

[GreatGazoo]

8. There is, of course, no such consensus. In fact 26 countries have banned GMOs and they

include the largest and most highly-educated countries on the planet: Switzerland, Australia, Austria, China, India, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy, Mexico and Russia. You may wish you had the numbers that climate change has but you don't -- 93% of Americans want GMOs labelled.

The bogus, talking point driven defense of GMOs has nothing to do with science since a 5 year-old can understand that spraying more pesticides on foods and introducing double strength pesticides like Dow's Enlist Duo clearly shows the failure and undesirability of GMO crops.

"Science" isn't a marketing campaign (but talking points are).

[progressoid]

10. There IS concensus in the scientific community.

Led by Alessandro Nicolia, an applied biologist at the University of Perugia in Italy, the team collected and evaluated 1,783 research papers, reviews, relevant opinions, and reports published between 2002 and 2012, a comprehensive process that took 12 months to complete. The records covered all aspects of GM crop safety, from how the crops interact with the environment, to how they could potentially affect the humans and animals who consume them.

"Our goal was to create a single document where interested people of all levels of expertise can get an overview on what has been done by scientists regarding GE crop safety," Nicolia told RCScience. "We tried to give a balanced view informing about what has been debated, the conclusions reached so far, and emerging issues."

Overall, the scientific literature was heavily in favor of GM agriculture.

55% of Americans think creationism should be taught in schools. Does that make creationism true?



p.s. On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.

[wisechoice]

11. Science has nothing to do with choosing non gmo

Just like buying electric vehicle or internal combustion engine car, even though we have consensus on climate change

[Demonaut]

13. these are different types of genetic modification with a different approach and results

one gm process uses a poison producing gene specific to a species of insect

and another is designed to be resistant to a specific poison

Quite different

[AZ Progressive]

7. Oh please, I'm not so worried about GMO's as in using it as an excuse to coat crops with glyphosate

Sellout

[beam me up scottie]

9. Thank you for posting another perspective.

Very good read, this issue is not as black and white as some would have us believe.

[99Forever]

14. Honestly label them and let consumers make an informed choice.

If you can't do that, you don't deserve a place on the market.

[Archae]

19. Except they don't make an "informed choice."

People are easily swayed by lurid propaganda, like this:



And how are they supposed to BE labeled, in the first place?
Every GMO tomato in a bin would have a sticker?

[99Forever]

21. Ahh bullshit.

Piss poor excuses for not being honest about a product. People who take PRIDE in their products and KNOW they are SAFE and won't HARM the environment, don't have to HIDE what is in them.

Furthermore, I'll refrain from telling you what you can do with your blatant "easily swayed" insult to all consumers.

[Demonaut]

16. this article is crap if it does not bear out the argument that this eggplant is not sold in the

US market for human consumption whatsoever, and as such is not held accountable to the FDA's approval , standards and processes.

Who authorised the tests and how were they conducted and who conducted them?

And who or which un-impeachable source validated the the results of ALL tests.

[Vinca]

22. Many of us aren't interested in eating food that can withstand a nuclear blast.

We should have a choice about what we put in our bodies and GMO producers, if they truly believe what they're saying, should be proud to label their food.